Frito-Lay Says Misbranded Snacks Class Action Should Be Dismissed

Frito-Lay told a California federal court that a class action alleging it falsely advertised health claims on some of its products should be dismissed because the plaintiffs haven’t shown that they relied on those claims or were harmed.

Lead plaintiffs alleged in their 2012 class action lawsuit that snack producer Frito-Lay included false health claims on some of its product packaging, like “prepared with healthier oils” and “contain 0 grams of Trans Fat, are low in saturated fat and cholesterol-free.”

The plaintiffs also alleged that Frito-Lay made misleading statements about the health benefits of its snacks by stating their products contain “good stuff like potatoes, which naturally contain vitamin C and essential minerals.”

The plaintiffs contend that in response to consumers’ growing preference for healthy food items, Frito-Lay included misleading health statements on its packaging, but the snacks inside failed to live up to those statements.

In its motion for dismissal of the class action, Frito-Lay argued that the plaintiffs failed to show that they decided to purchase Frito-Lay snacks based on the allegedly misleading health statements. Frito-Lay also pointed out that the plaintiffs are no longer entitled to an injunction because the health statements in question have since been removed from the products.

“The lawyer-driven nature of this litigation that plaintiffs described at their depositions, while not dispositive, is instructive,” said the snack company in its motion. “It explains how the case arrived at this point — having gone through multiple rounds of motions to dismiss and over a year’s worth of discovery — with named plaintiffs who lack any evidence to support the theories asserted in the [second amended complaint], and whose deposition testimony actually contradicts those claims.”

Frito-Lay argues that the multiple year litigation has failed to produce any evidence of wrongdoing on the company’s part and points out that the class action was initiated after the attorney for the plaintiffs approached consumers. Frito-Lay also points out that the plaintiffs’ attorney has filed dozens of similar class action lawsuits.

Frito-Lay further argues that the plaintiffs themselves have said that they did not rely on statements made on the snack packaging when they made their purchase, but instead on how the product tastes. The company contends that the plaintiffs can’t show that the Class they propose to represent relied on the health statements when making their snack purchases.

The plaintiffs amended their class action complaint in 2013, alleging 90 snacks produced by Frito-Lay contained misleading statements on their packaging. These claims were trimmed by U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti who pointed out that the plaintiffs had not purchased all the products listed.

In 2015, the plaintiffs asked the court to certify their proposed Class and, in response, Frito-Lay filed a motion to dismiss the case. However, the motions were put on hold until separate food-labeling cases pending in the Ninth Circuit were decided.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates and David McMullan Jr. of Don Barrett PA.

The Frito-Lay Misbranded Snacks Class Action Lawsuit is Markus Wilson, et al. v. Frito-Lay North America Inc., et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-01586, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.